[2015] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)

The court held that there were no new matters of fact or changes in the law since the ruling of 15th December 2014 that would justify a review or setting aside of the previous order. The issue of representation by an unqualified person is a fundamental legal issue that was properly raised and determined. Any alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1406 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Athumani Lali; Respondent: Nyali International Beach Hotel
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 60 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Previous Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Right of Audience, Representation by Advocate, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Right of Audience Representation by Advocate Review of Court Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Athumani Lali

Applicant

Nyali International Beach Hotel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Previous Order

  1. 1 Whether the application for review and setting aside of the ruling dated 15th December 2014 is merited.
  2. 2 Whether the issue of legal representation by an unqualified person can be revisited by way of review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there were no new matters of fact or changes in the law since the ruling of 15th December 2014 that would justify a review or setting aside of the previous order. The issue of representation by an unqualified person is a fundamental legal issue that was properly raised and determined. Any alleged misapprehension of the law by the court is not a ground for review but is instead a matter for appeal. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed and the preliminary objection upheld, with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 4th February 2015 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The orders of the court dated 15th December 2014 stand.